Followthrough discussion

[ToddG]

The point of my comment was that if people are to look at a photo and have something specifically noted, there is potential for the untrained shooter to see it and pick up bad habits.

My concern and sympathy for that problem is exactly zero. Someone who bases his training on an unexplained photo he found on the internet just doesn't concern me.


... 'nuff said

Todd, I was kind of curious why it took so long to jump in. Thank you for your insight. Playing devils advocate, if you had a brand new shooter and you saw the same thing (finger straight along the slide before the brass drops) would you have any teaching points and what would they be??

I don't pay attention to whether brass is in the air or not. Whether or not someone got a proper follow-through (and if appropriate, prep) is unrelated to how high the brass comes out of his gun, at what angle, and with what force. I'm not trying to sound snide -- I have a gift for doing it even without trying though -- but your question was specific.

In a broader context, do I correct a shooter who takes his finger off the trigger too soon? Yes. The issue is determining what too soon means, because it means different things to different shooters under different circumstances engaging different targets at different ranges.

I agree on how you teach the follow through and I understand that at speed the follow up sight picture is slow, if the sight picture is on the same target. To answer your question regarding shot prep, if I'm shooting 2 shots on multiple targets my "third" sight picture will be on the next target. My eyes will lead to the target and my sights will follow. Is that how you teach shooting multiple targets??

So let me play devil's advocate right back at you: if your follow-through and prep can be on a completely different target and that's ok, then would it be ok to have no follow-through or prep if you knew you were firing the last round on the last target you had to shoot?

When I talk about multiple targets, I make a clear distinction between the little things that matter when you're playing games on the range and the reality of how our eyes and brains will act under stress if we're shooting OFF the range. Multiple targets are actually easier to deal with when you take the gaming stuff out of it!

When you're shooting multiple static targets at known locations and distances, driving the gun immediately to the next target as part of your recoil recovery is certainly the right way to do it. If you have a reactive target, though (whether it's a steel plate, a balloon, or someone charging you with a knife) you're going to stay focused on that target until it no longer appears on the other side of your front sight.

That distinction, in fact, is why JW777 was right when he pointed out it was a known quantity drill in terms of targets and shots. Because while someone can say "I always prep for the next shot, what JW777 did is a bad habit!" I can just as easily counter with, "If you are constantly training yourself to reset and prep on a target/threat which is still standing unaffected by your previous shots and you stop shooting at it what you're doing is a bad habit!" Both are really pretty silly.

As I said, I'm in this for the information sharing.

No worries on my end. Though it might be more appropriate if this got split off into its own separate topic in the Tactics & Training section, since (a) it doesn't really have anything to do with the Culpeper class and (b) people who might be interested in what we're discussing but have no interest in a class AAR won't know this is being discussed.

[zushwa]

Thanks again for chiming in. I just want to make a couple comments but I think you're probably right about the location of this discussion.

Like it our not people will see and read something on the internet, especially a good forum like this, and try to apply it. I'm just hoping the information gleaned by ANYONE is complete and truthful. This is only accentuated by pictures and if it weren't true then these AAR's wouldn't be so popular.

To answer your question about the last shot on the last target, no, for me it isn't OK to not have some kind of follow through or sight picture. At least that's how I train and aspire to shoot. If it's the last shot of the last target I will still try to be prepared to shoot one more because I think it builds good fundamentals. Maybe I'm not smart enough to determine when I should and shouldn't do it.

[John_Wayne777]

No worries on my end. Though it might be more appropriate if this got split off into its own separate topic in the Tactics & Training section

Using my mod powers at incredible speed I have split the followthrough discussion into it's own thread.

...and my finger was instantly taken off the mouse button after the last click.

[Blake]

Second, there is shot prep. This is the whole "get a second sight picture, finger on trigger, ready to fire another shot" thing. Saying you do that on every drill is silly. If you were shooting two rounds on each of three targets, how many sight pictures do you get on the first target, two or three? If you say three, you're going slow for no good reason.

I only used part of your conversation because that is the part I am concerned with. I actually did notice the caption coupled with the photo, and initially questioned it. However, if I'm reading right what you are saying above. When you are faced with multiple threats, and you want to get at least "x" number of rounds on all the targets before completely neutralizing one; this is when it would acceptable not to follow through on the first engagements in the target series.

Example three bad guys, and I want to put two rounds on all of them, you are stating you are wasting time to follow through after the second shots on bad guy 1 and 2.

Is this your stance?

I have been taught this as well, but only on a multiple target engagement, would I not have the third sight picture on a target.

[John_Wayne777]

Example three bad guys, and I want to put two rounds on all of them, you are stating you are wasting time to follow through after the second shots on bad guy 1 and 2.

Is this your stance?

I think it's more along the lines of: If you know you have to engage three targets on the clock, it doesn't make sense to set up a third shot on a target you know doesn't need that third shot when you could be shooting that second target with that expended effort.

In reality you won't be deciding "OK, I want to put two in bad guy number one, two in bad guy number 2, and two in bad guy number three..." You'll be shooting until the threat stops.

[Blake]

I think it's more along the lines of: If you know you have to engage three targets on the clock, it doesn't make sense to set up a third shot on a target you know doesn't need that third shot when you could be shooting that second target with that expended effort.

In reality you won't be deciding "OK, I want to put two in bad guy number one, two in bad guy number 2, and two in bad guy number three..." You'll be shooting until the threat stops.

I agree with the first part of your statement. However, I have no experience or no idea what I may or may not do, when facing multiple threats. I would hope that if you train to engage multiple threats a certain way, that you could make an attempt to get rounds on multiple targets. Someone with that experience may be able to chime in on that one.

[zushwa]

I'm really trying to understand this for my own edification. Is it your stance that sometimes it's OK to do without follow through, and sometimes it's needed?? Are you saying that it's up to me, the shooter, and the circumstances that are presented to me, to decide whether or not I need to follow through?

[ToddG]

Like it our not people will see and read something on the internet, especially a good forum like this, and try to apply it. I'm just hoping the information gleaned by ANYONE is complete and truthful. This is only accentuated by pictures and if it weren't true then these AAR's wouldn't be so popular.

I understand what you're saying, but I can only reiterate my previous statement: if someone who (1) doesn't know what he's doing to begin with (2) sees a picture on the internet (3) without understanding exactly what he's seeing (4) attempts to replicate it and (5) fails ... status quo. The guy who doesn't know what he's doing continues not knowing what he's doing.

E.g.:


If someone saw the above picture and glued a piece of brass to his front sight thinking it was "tactical" because the photo is from a well-known, highly-respected instructor's tactical pistol class ...

To answer your question about the last shot on the last target, no, for me it isn't OK to not have some kind of follow through or sight picture. At least that's how I train and aspire to shoot. If it's the last shot of the last target I will still try to be prepared to shoot one more because I think it builds good fundamentals. Maybe I'm not smart enough to determine when I should and shouldn't do it.

Again, it's the difference between where you do your follow-through and where I do mine.

Think about swinging a bat in baseball. Which is proper follow-through:

1. allowing the bat to move through its natural arc of movement after striking the ball; or,
2. cocking the bat back over your shoulder and preparing for a second swing?

You should always have follow-through on aimed shots. Whether or not you need to reset & prep depends on the circumstances, as you pointed out yourself. If you're firing known numbers of shots on known targets, you don't reset & prep on a target after you've fired the last shot on that target. You move on to another target. You can call that "reset & prep" but it's not the same thing as following through back down on the target you just shot.

I only used part of your conversation because that is the part I am concerned with. I actually did notice the caption coupled with the photo, and initially questioned it. However, if I'm reading right what you are saying above. When you are faced with multiple threats, and you want to get at least "x" number of rounds on all the targets before completely neutralizing one; this is when it would acceptable not to follow through on the first engagements in the target series.

The idea that we can have a pre-planned number of rounds we're going to fire against each threat in a dynamic encounter is debunked daily in Force-on-Force training all around the globe. It just doesn't happen. Physical visible reaction of the threat, movement of all parties involved, etc. makes the "El Presidente" approach or "Boarding House Rules" approach to multiple threat engagement non-sensical.

This is fairly easy to prove to yourself if you have three friends. Have them stand five yards away from you and when one of them yells GO have them scatter in different directions and see how easy it is for you to line up your index finger with each one of them, move it away in recoil, and do it again before moving on to the next guy. It's absolutely nothing like shooting three static targets standing next to one another on a square range. In the time you're searching for and engaging #2 and #3, #1 (who wasn't incapacitated by the two rounds you launched in his direction) is also still a threat.

Now instead, keep your attention on #1 until he is incapacitated. Then move on to #2 and repeat, and finally #3. It's faster and -- more importantly -- it's what your brain is going to do under stress.

Note: in both circumstances, it's going to take a lot longer to put down three moving, aggressive threats than it takes to fire 2-2-2 on a square range. One could even get the feeling that 3-against-1 is bad odds in a gunfight!

I'm really trying to understand this for my own edification. Is it your stance that sometimes it's OK to do without follow through, and sometimes it's needed?? Are you saying that it's up to me, the shooter, and the circumstances that are presented to me, to decide whether or not I need to follow through?

You should always follow through if you're looking at your sight ... if you're not looking at the front sight to begin with, it's a moot point.

Whether or not you bring the gun down on that target and prep for another shot is situationally dependent, as you pointed out in the multiple target engagement description you provided earlier.

[zushwa]

I'm confused. Anyone else?? What I read seems somewhat contradictory and convoluted.

As I'm staring at these locals outside of our compound in a non permissive (maybe semi permissive at this point) environment it is very hard for me to imagine not falling back on the fundamentals I've been taught if I need to engage one or five of them, if they choose to act aggressively. I will shoot all of them that present a threat until there is no more. I'm pretty sure I'll have a final sight picture and my finger will not be straight until I have to reload, move, or I'm ready to holster and the fight is over. When I shoot paper, plates, or SIMS, it's just practice for the real thing. I guess it's up to each of us to decide why we shoot and how we'll try to conduct ourselves for our own situation.

I'm really not trying to start a pissing contest. I was just looking for a clear explanation. Again, maybe I'm not smart enough to grasp the concept. For me, I don't do anything different from one shot, ten shots, one target, ten targets. I try to use the fundamentals I've been taught each and every time, because I don't always get to choose. As a great instructor once said, shooting is simple, it's just not easy......

Thanks for the feedback Todd.

[ToddG]

I'm confused. Anyone else?? What I read seems somewhat contradictory and convoluted.

I'm not sure what you're reading that is "contradictory and convoluted," but if you can back off on the rhetoric and continue to discuss the issue professionally, I'm happy to.

You keep saying that you do it the exact same way every time, but you also stated above that you know you're not really doing it the exact same way. You realize you're doing something different in terms of follow-through when engaging a second target than you do when you're staying on one target. So in other words, you do something different when you're done with a target. Res ipsa loquitur.

Again, trying to mesh "tactics" of shooting non-reactive static targets with reactive dynamic targets just doesn't work. Your paper target is going to stand there no matter how many times you shoot it. So when do you stop shooting at it? When you choose to. If someone feels that prepping for another shot after he's made the conscious decision to stop shooting is more realistic training than stopping when you've decided to stop, no harm no foul. But suggesting that stopping when I know I'm done and I've made the conscious decision to stop shooting is somehow bad or un-tacticool? Sorry, no.